This topic is currently marked as "dormant"—the last message is more than 90 days old. You can revive it by posting a reply.
1John5918
From the NCR:
Early women leaders: from heads of house churches to presbyters
The meaning of ordination and how women were gradually excluded
Ordination of women would correct an injustice
It reminds me of books by my old colleague, scripture scholar and theologian John Wijngaards. Did Christ Rule Out Women Priests? is the one I remember from 30-odd years ago, but I see he has since written others, including Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church: Unmasking a Cuckoo's Egg Tradition and Women Deacons in the Early Church: Historical Texts and Contemporary Debates.
Early women leaders: from heads of house churches to presbyters
The meaning of ordination and how women were gradually excluded
Ordination of women would correct an injustice
It reminds me of books by my old colleague, scripture scholar and theologian John Wijngaards. Did Christ Rule Out Women Priests? is the one I remember from 30-odd years ago, but I see he has since written others, including Ordination of Women in the Catholic Church: Unmasking a Cuckoo's Egg Tradition and Women Deacons in the Early Church: Historical Texts and Contemporary Debates.
2nathanielcampbell
The second article you link to is written by Gary Macy, who has done a lot of the more recent work on this, e.g. his book The Hidden History of Women's Ordination.
While it is true, as he says, the the term "ordination" underwent an evolution in the 12th century; and while it is true that are a very small handful of very scattered references to women in some way performing the Eucharist; he conveniently overlooks two facts:
(1) The broader term of "ordination" he discusses was not necessarily tied specifically to the Eucharist; thus, to say that women were "ordained" before the 12th century does not mean the same thing as it would to say that women should be "ordained" today. As he points out, kings and queens were also "ordained" in that period, yet nobody ever thought that their ordination included the office of celebrating the Eucharist.
Macy's entire argument hinges upon the fact that "ordination" meant something different in the first millennium. Thus, it is illogical to then use the term to imply that women should be ordained today, since "ordination" means something different.
(2) Other than the 4th-6th century altar that he mentions, as well as a few other scattered inscriptions discussed in the book I cited above, all references to women celebrating the Eucharist (as with the letter of Pope Gelasius I from 494) are in the negative form of ordering it to be to be stopped.
In other words, what little evidence there is for women celebrating the Eucharist in late antiquity is evidence that it was a marginal, heterodox, and thoroughly disapproved-of practice.
Does that mean that we shouldn't be having a discussion about aggiornamento? No. But what it does mean is that attempts to argue for women's ordination based on historical precedent are flawed and intellecutally dishonest.
While it is true, as he says, the the term "ordination" underwent an evolution in the 12th century; and while it is true that are a very small handful of very scattered references to women in some way performing the Eucharist; he conveniently overlooks two facts:
(1) The broader term of "ordination" he discusses was not necessarily tied specifically to the Eucharist; thus, to say that women were "ordained" before the 12th century does not mean the same thing as it would to say that women should be "ordained" today. As he points out, kings and queens were also "ordained" in that period, yet nobody ever thought that their ordination included the office of celebrating the Eucharist.
Macy's entire argument hinges upon the fact that "ordination" meant something different in the first millennium. Thus, it is illogical to then use the term to imply that women should be ordained today, since "ordination" means something different.
(2) Other than the 4th-6th century altar that he mentions, as well as a few other scattered inscriptions discussed in the book I cited above, all references to women celebrating the Eucharist (as with the letter of Pope Gelasius I from 494) are in the negative form of ordering it to be to be stopped.
In other words, what little evidence there is for women celebrating the Eucharist in late antiquity is evidence that it was a marginal, heterodox, and thoroughly disapproved-of practice.
Does that mean that we shouldn't be having a discussion about aggiornamento? No. But what it does mean is that attempts to argue for women's ordination based on historical precedent are flawed and intellecutally dishonest.
3John5918
>2 nathanielcampbell: attempts to argue for women's ordination based on historical precedent are flawed and intellectually dishonest
Isn't that rather a harsh judgement? If one of the major modern arguments often advanced against ordination of women is that it is somehow ontologically impossible, isn't it significant to note that it might actually have happened, even if a bit marginal and frowned upon? If something did occur, however rarely, then it is not ontologically impossible (I hope "ontologically" is the right technical term here).
An example which I know is on a completely different theological level is that of celibacy. The fact is that the western Roman Catholic Church has lots (we're talking hundreds, possibly thousands) of married priests, who were previously Anglican priests and are now re-ordained as Catholic priests. So while there may be arguments in favour of continuing celibacy for Catholic priests normatively and saying that these are special exceptions, it is no longer tenable to say that Catholic priests must by nature be celibate, as there are counter-examples.
Isn't it also true that in many fields it is not a question of a single line of research giving results which change everybody's thinking, but a gradual build-up of many different lines? So this sort of exploration of women's roles is relevant but not by itself earth-shattering.
Isn't that rather a harsh judgement? If one of the major modern arguments often advanced against ordination of women is that it is somehow ontologically impossible, isn't it significant to note that it might actually have happened, even if a bit marginal and frowned upon? If something did occur, however rarely, then it is not ontologically impossible (I hope "ontologically" is the right technical term here).
An example which I know is on a completely different theological level is that of celibacy. The fact is that the western Roman Catholic Church has lots (we're talking hundreds, possibly thousands) of married priests, who were previously Anglican priests and are now re-ordained as Catholic priests. So while there may be arguments in favour of continuing celibacy for Catholic priests normatively and saying that these are special exceptions, it is no longer tenable to say that Catholic priests must by nature be celibate, as there are counter-examples.
Isn't it also true that in many fields it is not a question of a single line of research giving results which change everybody's thinking, but a gradual build-up of many different lines? So this sort of exploration of women's roles is relevant but not by itself earth-shattering.
4nathanielcampbell
>3 John5918:: Technically, women's ordination and priestly celebacy are two very different issues that exist at two very different points in the Church's (admittedly ahistorical) defintions:
(1) The male priesthood belongs to the realm of dogma, the depositum fidei that is singular, universal, and permanent.
(2) Celebacy belongs to the realm of doctrine, which evolves, develops, and changes as the Church better understands the implications of dogma for living in an evolving, developing, changing world.
The norms of celebacy are a practice of the Western Rite that could be changed by a simple stroke of the Pope's pen. Changing the scope of ordination, however, is considered an entirely different class of change. As it stands, the Church has so circumscribed it as to admit of no possible change ever; at minimum, however, it would probably require an ecumenical council (and likely one in which West and East met together).
Anyone who thinks that the Pope could simply order women to be ordained without a Council simply doesn't understand how the Church makes decisions about important points of dogma such as this.
(1) The male priesthood belongs to the realm of dogma, the depositum fidei that is singular, universal, and permanent.
(2) Celebacy belongs to the realm of doctrine, which evolves, develops, and changes as the Church better understands the implications of dogma for living in an evolving, developing, changing world.
The norms of celebacy are a practice of the Western Rite that could be changed by a simple stroke of the Pope's pen. Changing the scope of ordination, however, is considered an entirely different class of change. As it stands, the Church has so circumscribed it as to admit of no possible change ever; at minimum, however, it would probably require an ecumenical council (and likely one in which West and East met together).
Anyone who thinks that the Pope could simply order women to be ordained without a Council simply doesn't understand how the Church makes decisions about important points of dogma such as this.
5nathanielcampbell
>3 John5918:: Re: ontologically valid:
There's a difference between a tiny handful of women performing the Eucharist and whether those celebrations were in any way valid (and they were certainly, as the historical evidence suggests, illicit).
Let me put it this way: the evidence for the existence of both gnostics of various kinds and Arian Christians who denied the absolute divinity of Christ is several orders of magnitude larger than that for the existence of women priests. The very fact that none of the first seven Ecumenical Councils bothered to ever issue a single canon about the topic indicates just how limited, insignificant, and marginal of a practice it was.
There were far more Marcionites who denied the authenticity of the Old Testament than there were women performing the Eucharist. Does that mean that we should all start going around rejecting the Old Testament as the false revelations of an evil demiurge? (Though I'm sure that would please lawecon.)
There's a difference between a tiny handful of women performing the Eucharist and whether those celebrations were in any way valid (and they were certainly, as the historical evidence suggests, illicit).
Let me put it this way: the evidence for the existence of both gnostics of various kinds and Arian Christians who denied the absolute divinity of Christ is several orders of magnitude larger than that for the existence of women priests. The very fact that none of the first seven Ecumenical Councils bothered to ever issue a single canon about the topic indicates just how limited, insignificant, and marginal of a practice it was.
There were far more Marcionites who denied the authenticity of the Old Testament than there were women performing the Eucharist. Does that mean that we should all start going around rejecting the Old Testament as the false revelations of an evil demiurge? (Though I'm sure that would please lawecon.)
6nathanielcampbell
I realize that the tone in my previous posts may have been a little too harsh, but it reflects the annoyance I feel at the way that Macy (and more so others who don't know better) can elide the implications of historical data to make it say what it doesn't say. The simple fact is that there is no evidence that women were ever accepted as confecters of the Eucharist (="priests") in the catholic tradition (i.e. following St. Vincent of Lerins' gloss of "catholic" as "that which is held by all in common everywhere"). The handful of exceptions that Macy gloms onto are precisely that: exceptions, not regular features.
What Macy does an excellent job articulating is the fundamental shift that occured in the High Middle Ages regarding the use of the term, "ordinatio". For its first millennium, the Church was a Body of many different members, of many different ordines ("orders", or better, "communities", as I think Macy succinctly describes them) in which spiritual authority was exercised by men and women alike. The "sacramental" priesthood, i.e. which performed most importantly the Eucharist, was only one of those many ordines, albeit one that all evidence indicates had always been restricted to men.
The problem for today's Church, then, is that the priesthood specifically has become the only ordo invested with any institutional spiritual authority.
Thus, to open up insitutionalized spiritual authority to women, the status quo forces you to break the traditions of the sacramental priesthood rather than returning to a first-millennium situation in which non-priestly ordines exercised spiritual authority, too.
ETA: On second thought, it might be possible to recover some of that sense of authority within other ordines if we look, for example, to the idea of the Doctors of the Church as an ordo that embodies the magisterium -- as crucially, women have now been admitted to the Order of Doctors.
What Macy does an excellent job articulating is the fundamental shift that occured in the High Middle Ages regarding the use of the term, "ordinatio". For its first millennium, the Church was a Body of many different members, of many different ordines ("orders", or better, "communities", as I think Macy succinctly describes them) in which spiritual authority was exercised by men and women alike. The "sacramental" priesthood, i.e. which performed most importantly the Eucharist, was only one of those many ordines, albeit one that all evidence indicates had always been restricted to men.
The problem for today's Church, then, is that the priesthood specifically has become the only ordo invested with any institutional spiritual authority.
Thus, to open up insitutionalized spiritual authority to women, the status quo forces you to break the traditions of the sacramental priesthood rather than returning to a first-millennium situation in which non-priestly ordines exercised spiritual authority, too.
ETA: On second thought, it might be possible to recover some of that sense of authority within other ordines if we look, for example, to the idea of the Doctors of the Church as an ordo that embodies the magisterium -- as crucially, women have now been admitted to the Order of Doctors.
7John5918
>4 nathanielcampbell: Technically, women's ordination and priestly celibacy are two very different issues
Well yes, I know, as I said in my post. It was just a thought to illustrate a point. Maybe it didn't work.
>5 nathanielcampbell: It's helpful for us all to know more about the different strands which existed in the tradition of the Church, some of which became mainstream, some of which faded, some of which were condemned as heresies, or whatever. Arians and Marcionites are generally known about, but I wager that very few modern Catholics know much about even the limited roles that women might have played in the early Church. So it's useful for that to get some visibility. Also, Arians and Marcionites are not major players in today's Church; women are.
>6 nathanielcampbell: I don't disagree with you, but it seems that the arguments advanced in the NCR and by Macy help us to open all this up. You appear to be reacting to the very narrow issue of ordaining women into the existing concept of priesthood rather than broader issues of authority, leadership and ordination.
Well yes, I know, as I said in my post. It was just a thought to illustrate a point. Maybe it didn't work.
>5 nathanielcampbell: It's helpful for us all to know more about the different strands which existed in the tradition of the Church, some of which became mainstream, some of which faded, some of which were condemned as heresies, or whatever. Arians and Marcionites are generally known about, but I wager that very few modern Catholics know much about even the limited roles that women might have played in the early Church. So it's useful for that to get some visibility. Also, Arians and Marcionites are not major players in today's Church; women are.
>6 nathanielcampbell: I don't disagree with you, but it seems that the arguments advanced in the NCR and by Macy help us to open all this up. You appear to be reacting to the very narrow issue of ordaining women into the existing concept of priesthood rather than broader issues of authority, leadership and ordination.
8nathanielcampbell
>7 John5918:: "You appear to be reacting to the very narrow issue of ordaining women into the existing concept of priesthood rather than broader issues of authority, leadership and ordination."
Yes, the "harshness" in my posts is a result of that narrow reaction.
But (and I can't fault you for not seeing this yet, as I posted the edit-additions at the same time as your post 7!), I do think on second though that Macy's work on "ordinatio" can open up some new ways of thinking on the "broader issues" of authority and leadership, to wit:
"It might be possible to recover some of that sense of authority within other ordines if we look, for example, to the idea of the Doctors of the Church as an ordo that embodies the magisterium -- as crucially, women have now been admitted to the Order of Doctors."
Yes, the "harshness" in my posts is a result of that narrow reaction.
But (and I can't fault you for not seeing this yet, as I posted the edit-additions at the same time as your post 7!), I do think on second though that Macy's work on "ordinatio" can open up some new ways of thinking on the "broader issues" of authority and leadership, to wit:
"It might be possible to recover some of that sense of authority within other ordines if we look, for example, to the idea of the Doctors of the Church as an ordo that embodies the magisterium -- as crucially, women have now been admitted to the Order of Doctors."
9nathanielcampbell
(I'm thinking on my feet here, so apologies in advance if these ideas seem half-formed or wandering...)
Any attempt at ressourcement with regards to ordinatio would need to be careful not to simply discard medieval and modern evolutions. That is, we recognize that ordinatio isn't simply the temporal granting of institutional authority; rather, it is a sacrament in the fundamental sense--a spatio-temporal office which is a channel for the specific divine grace that animates and fulfills the authority of the officeholder.
The issue, then, is whether the celebration of the Eucharist (the "source and summit" of the spiritual life) is the sine qua non of such sacramental authority; or whether such sacramental authority can be recognized in offices other than the priesthood.
If the former, then the whole quagmire is, for the moment, inescapable. If the latter, however, then I think there could be room to develop a more robust place for women as holders of sacramental authority without necessarily admitting them to the specific order of the priesthood.
The revival of the permanent diaconate could potentially pave the way for the revival of deaconesses, since the permanent diaconate breaks the necessary developmental link between deacon and priest. Yet, deaconnesses, like deacons, are less "leaders" per se and more servants.
Another route would be to revive the institutional authority of "mitred abbesses", as it were. Because their institutional authority was once equal, under canon law, to that of a bishop (though of course they were not of the priesthood as are bishops), one could probably make a fairly good argument for allowing them to be voting members of councils.
Does anyone know whether religious superiors can be made Cardinals? If so, then one could even possibly articulate an argument in favor of giving mitred abbesses red hats, though of course they wouldn't be eligible to the Bishopric of Rome.
Any attempt at ressourcement with regards to ordinatio would need to be careful not to simply discard medieval and modern evolutions. That is, we recognize that ordinatio isn't simply the temporal granting of institutional authority; rather, it is a sacrament in the fundamental sense--a spatio-temporal office which is a channel for the specific divine grace that animates and fulfills the authority of the officeholder.
The issue, then, is whether the celebration of the Eucharist (the "source and summit" of the spiritual life) is the sine qua non of such sacramental authority; or whether such sacramental authority can be recognized in offices other than the priesthood.
If the former, then the whole quagmire is, for the moment, inescapable. If the latter, however, then I think there could be room to develop a more robust place for women as holders of sacramental authority without necessarily admitting them to the specific order of the priesthood.
The revival of the permanent diaconate could potentially pave the way for the revival of deaconesses, since the permanent diaconate breaks the necessary developmental link between deacon and priest. Yet, deaconnesses, like deacons, are less "leaders" per se and more servants.
Another route would be to revive the institutional authority of "mitred abbesses", as it were. Because their institutional authority was once equal, under canon law, to that of a bishop (though of course they were not of the priesthood as are bishops), one could probably make a fairly good argument for allowing them to be voting members of councils.
Does anyone know whether religious superiors can be made Cardinals? If so, then one could even possibly articulate an argument in favor of giving mitred abbesses red hats, though of course they wouldn't be eligible to the Bishopric of Rome.
10John5918
>9 nathanielcampbell: Interesting thoughts.
My theology is rusty, but don't we already have normative sacramental ministers and other ("emergency"?) ministers. For example the ordained minister is the normative minister for baptism but anyone can do it in an emergency, and in many countries it is routinely delegated to lay catechists. The bishop is the normative minister of confirmation, but any priest can do it. If some sacraments can be done by other than the normative minister, is there not scope for other sacraments to be done so also?
We already have lay catechists routinely leading communion services every Sunday in many parts of the world, in places which might only see a priest once or twice a year (I once accompanied a bishop into the Nuba Mountains war zone where they hadn't seen a bishop for fifteen years). The liturgy is virtually identical to the Mass except that the Eucharistic prayer is omitted. If previously consecrated hosts are available, they are distributed (admittedly they are usually not available in chapels where the priest only visits very irregularly, but there are many cases where they are available). I have seen a priest pitch up to find that the catechist has already started the service, and the priest just slips seamlessly in and takes up where the catechist left off. I suspect that many of the people don't even notice the difference.
Is it such a big leap to imagine a catechist being delegated (or ordained) to preside at the Eucharist rather than a communion service in his own chapel in the absence of a priest? Can we imagine temporary and geographical ordination, where he will be commissioned only for that place and for a particular time period? Remember we already have incardination for priests where in fact they are only ordained for a particular diocese, not universally, although in practice most dioceses have reciprocal arrangements so to all intents and purposes a priest can practice anywhere. A bishop I worked with for many years was convinced that bishops should only be ordained for a fixed time span, say 15 years, after which they could return to being parish priests. The same bishop also toyed with the idea of temporary celibate priests - 25 years of celibate priesthood, say, then settle down with a family.
As for cardinals, I seem to recall that you don't have to be ordained to be a cardinal and that there were lay cardinals at some point in history.
My theology is rusty, but don't we already have normative sacramental ministers and other ("emergency"?) ministers. For example the ordained minister is the normative minister for baptism but anyone can do it in an emergency, and in many countries it is routinely delegated to lay catechists. The bishop is the normative minister of confirmation, but any priest can do it. If some sacraments can be done by other than the normative minister, is there not scope for other sacraments to be done so also?
We already have lay catechists routinely leading communion services every Sunday in many parts of the world, in places which might only see a priest once or twice a year (I once accompanied a bishop into the Nuba Mountains war zone where they hadn't seen a bishop for fifteen years). The liturgy is virtually identical to the Mass except that the Eucharistic prayer is omitted. If previously consecrated hosts are available, they are distributed (admittedly they are usually not available in chapels where the priest only visits very irregularly, but there are many cases where they are available). I have seen a priest pitch up to find that the catechist has already started the service, and the priest just slips seamlessly in and takes up where the catechist left off. I suspect that many of the people don't even notice the difference.
Is it such a big leap to imagine a catechist being delegated (or ordained) to preside at the Eucharist rather than a communion service in his own chapel in the absence of a priest? Can we imagine temporary and geographical ordination, where he will be commissioned only for that place and for a particular time period? Remember we already have incardination for priests where in fact they are only ordained for a particular diocese, not universally, although in practice most dioceses have reciprocal arrangements so to all intents and purposes a priest can practice anywhere. A bishop I worked with for many years was convinced that bishops should only be ordained for a fixed time span, say 15 years, after which they could return to being parish priests. The same bishop also toyed with the idea of temporary celibate priests - 25 years of celibate priesthood, say, then settle down with a family.
As for cardinals, I seem to recall that you don't have to be ordained to be a cardinal and that there were lay cardinals at some point in history.
11nathanielcampbell
>10 John5918:: There's a big difference between practices such as incardination, which pertain to the licetness of performing the sacraments, and the actual ordination itself, which pertains the validity of performing the sacraments.
When a priest is ordained, he receives permanently the sacramental character -- from that time forward, even if he is defrocked, if he performs the sacraments, they are valid.
The rules of incardination, however, have to do with licitness rather than validity. If a priest is not authorized to perform the sacraments outside his own diocese yet does so anyway, the sacraments are still valid even though they are illicit--i.e. the priest has broken canon law in the process.
Notice also that the lay catechists are only authorized to distribute the Eucharist -- they have not been ordained and therefore do not have the sacramental power to confect the Eucharist. Furthermore, the idea of emergency or normative sacramental ministers does NOT apply to the Eucharist. There is a strict distinction, in this case, between the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist--the former can be performed validly by any baptized person; the latter can only be validly performed by an ordained priest. Furthermore, it is according to the sacerdotal character shared by priests and bishops that priests can be delegated to perform Confirmation (historical sidenote: in the Scivias, Hildegard of Bingen uses a circumlocution for bishops and priests that literally means, "chrism-makers": pigmentarii.)
The basic issue, then, is whether the sacerdotal character by which sacraments are performed is necessarily bound up with other powers of authority, e.g. administration and teaching. Can there be a sacramental order of teachers (i.e. teachers who are "ordained" to the office of teaching) without those teachers also being priests?
When a priest is ordained, he receives permanently the sacramental character -- from that time forward, even if he is defrocked, if he performs the sacraments, they are valid.
The rules of incardination, however, have to do with licitness rather than validity. If a priest is not authorized to perform the sacraments outside his own diocese yet does so anyway, the sacraments are still valid even though they are illicit--i.e. the priest has broken canon law in the process.
Notice also that the lay catechists are only authorized to distribute the Eucharist -- they have not been ordained and therefore do not have the sacramental power to confect the Eucharist. Furthermore, the idea of emergency or normative sacramental ministers does NOT apply to the Eucharist. There is a strict distinction, in this case, between the sacraments of Baptism and Eucharist--the former can be performed validly by any baptized person; the latter can only be validly performed by an ordained priest. Furthermore, it is according to the sacerdotal character shared by priests and bishops that priests can be delegated to perform Confirmation (historical sidenote: in the Scivias, Hildegard of Bingen uses a circumlocution for bishops and priests that literally means, "chrism-makers": pigmentarii.)
The basic issue, then, is whether the sacerdotal character by which sacraments are performed is necessarily bound up with other powers of authority, e.g. administration and teaching. Can there be a sacramental order of teachers (i.e. teachers who are "ordained" to the office of teaching) without those teachers also being priests?
12John5918
>11 nathanielcampbell: Actually for me, and for many within the Church, the basic issue is whether or not the Eucharist is at the centre of our lives as Catholics or not. If it is, then all the obstacles which effectively prevent the majority of Catholics in the world from having regular access to the Eucharist need to be reconsidered. If it isn't, well by all means let's continue to argue about ordination, validity, licitness, which sacraments can be delegated and which can't, which human beings can make the Eucharist available to the People of God and which can't, etc.
My example of incardination is merely to demonstrate that we already put geographical boundaries on the licitness of priests exercising their ministry and it's not such a huge step to imagine putting more restrictive geographical boundaries on a lay catechist ordained to serve only his own community.
My example of incardination is merely to demonstrate that we already put geographical boundaries on the licitness of priests exercising their ministry and it's not such a huge step to imagine putting more restrictive geographical boundaries on a lay catechist ordained to serve only his own community.
13nathanielcampbell
>12 John5918:: "a lay catechist ordained "
But here is a fundamental problem. If a person is a lay catechist, he or she is not ordained (under the current system).* If a person is ordained with the sacerdotal character and therefore has been marked out ("signified") as an instrument of the grace that confects the Eucharist, that person is a priest (period).
There is no such thing as a temporary ordination; there is no such thing as an ordained lay person. The sacrament is a permanent change in character.
-----------------
*This is the whole crux of the question Macy raises about what "ordained" means. As it stands today, ordination is only to the three interconnected Holy Orders of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop. But as it once was, ordination is a marking out ("signification") / entry into (either image is appropriate) the leadership of an ordo, an order or community of the Body of the Christ. Nevertheless, even in its oldest usage, ordination marked a boundary line between the laity and the clergy, broadly defined. An ordinand ceases to be a lay person, for they now hold an office of the Church.
The most interesting areas for considering what "ordination" could mean are not, I think, actually the historical cases of women, but rather, the historical cases of kings and emperors. As I'm sure you well know, John, the Coronation of the English Monarch includes annointings and other processes that are essentially sacramental (you should now begin to hear the proud beats of "Zadok the Priest" in your head -- on YouTube). There was a time (ca. 8th - 12th cens.) where that sacramentality's role in the Church was taken very seriously, and in English law, it eventually issued in the concept of The King's Two Bodies (Kantorowicz's third chapter is best on this), and of course since the Reformation, it also marks out the monarch as the Head of the Church.
By virtue of their anointing/ordination, Carolingian kings and German emperors understood themselves to be sacramental representatives of Christ's Kingship, parallel to the sacerdotal representation of Christ's Priesthood performed by the priests and bishops of the Church. The whole battle between regnum and sacerdotium (Kingdom and Priesthood) in the 11th and 12th centuries was over what role that ordained authority had in the governance of the Church -- it basically came down to whose authority was supreme in Christendom, the Emperor's or the Pope's. Anyway, the point is that kings held a semi-ecclesiastical and ordained office of high authority that did NOT include the authority to confect the sacraments.
But here is a fundamental problem. If a person is a lay catechist, he or she is not ordained (under the current system).* If a person is ordained with the sacerdotal character and therefore has been marked out ("signified") as an instrument of the grace that confects the Eucharist, that person is a priest (period).
There is no such thing as a temporary ordination; there is no such thing as an ordained lay person. The sacrament is a permanent change in character.
-----------------
*This is the whole crux of the question Macy raises about what "ordained" means. As it stands today, ordination is only to the three interconnected Holy Orders of Deacon, Priest, and Bishop. But as it once was, ordination is a marking out ("signification") / entry into (either image is appropriate) the leadership of an ordo, an order or community of the Body of the Christ. Nevertheless, even in its oldest usage, ordination marked a boundary line between the laity and the clergy, broadly defined. An ordinand ceases to be a lay person, for they now hold an office of the Church.
The most interesting areas for considering what "ordination" could mean are not, I think, actually the historical cases of women, but rather, the historical cases of kings and emperors. As I'm sure you well know, John, the Coronation of the English Monarch includes annointings and other processes that are essentially sacramental (you should now begin to hear the proud beats of "Zadok the Priest" in your head -- on YouTube). There was a time (ca. 8th - 12th cens.) where that sacramentality's role in the Church was taken very seriously, and in English law, it eventually issued in the concept of The King's Two Bodies (Kantorowicz's third chapter is best on this), and of course since the Reformation, it also marks out the monarch as the Head of the Church.
By virtue of their anointing/ordination, Carolingian kings and German emperors understood themselves to be sacramental representatives of Christ's Kingship, parallel to the sacerdotal representation of Christ's Priesthood performed by the priests and bishops of the Church. The whole battle between regnum and sacerdotium (Kingdom and Priesthood) in the 11th and 12th centuries was over what role that ordained authority had in the governance of the Church -- it basically came down to whose authority was supreme in Christendom, the Emperor's or the Pope's. Anyway, the point is that kings held a semi-ecclesiastical and ordained office of high authority that did NOT include the authority to confect the sacraments.
14nathanielcampbell
And the question over what constitutes the priesthood and whether the priestly character is revocable goes back to ancient times -- in fact, it was at the very center of the Donatist controversy that flared up at the beginning of the fourth century!
15John5918
>13 nathanielcampbell: Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant one of our existing lay catechists ordained for a particular and restricted purpose akin to what he already does in his own outstation/chapel, but with the addition of presiding at the Eucharist for that community only. Of course once he was ordained he would no longer be lay.
As for temporary ordination, well, maybe there ought to be, as my bishop used to wish for. I'm imagining what could be possible if the Spirit were allowed to blow where She wills. Or maybe it doesn't need to be ordination, but simply a delegation of sacramental authority in particular cases. See how bogged down we get if we insist on fixed terms like ordination?
As for temporary ordination, well, maybe there ought to be, as my bishop used to wish for. I'm imagining what could be possible if the Spirit were allowed to blow where She wills. Or maybe it doesn't need to be ordination, but simply a delegation of sacramental authority in particular cases. See how bogged down we get if we insist on fixed terms like ordination?
16nathanielcampbell
>15 John5918:: "I meant one of our existing lay catechists ordained for a particular and restricted purpose akin to what he already does in his own outstation/chapel, but with the addition of presiding at the Eucharist for that community only."
Whatever restrictions would be placed upon such an ordination would be legal, not sacramental. If such a lay catechist were so ordained, he would be a priest, from that time forth forevermore.
"a delegation of sacramental authority"
There are precise limits on such delegation. A lay person cannot be delegated the sacramental authority to confect the Eucharist. That was as true in the early church as it is today (although the early church wouldn't have necessarily used these precise terms; nevertheless, it has always been the case that the "presider" or "celebrant" of the Eucharist is nominally a presbyter or episkopos).
Whatever restrictions would be placed upon such an ordination would be legal, not sacramental. If such a lay catechist were so ordained, he would be a priest, from that time forth forevermore.
"a delegation of sacramental authority"
There are precise limits on such delegation. A lay person cannot be delegated the sacramental authority to confect the Eucharist. That was as true in the early church as it is today (although the early church wouldn't have necessarily used these precise terms; nevertheless, it has always been the case that the "presider" or "celebrant" of the Eucharist is nominally a presbyter or episkopos).
17John5918
>16 nathanielcampbell: Yes, of course he would be a priest. But he could be a priest with limited jurisdiction, not like a priest as we know it.
Yes, there are precise limitations on sacramental delegation. But the fact that the principle of sacramental delegation exists should give us hope that those limits could one day be broadened.
Yes, there are precise limitations on sacramental delegation. But the fact that the principle of sacramental delegation exists should give us hope that those limits could one day be broadened.
18John5918
Incidentally, see how we're bogged down in a discussion on technicalities rather than the core question I raised in >12 John5918:: "Is the Eucharist at the centre of Catholic life?" and the corollary, "If so, why are we not trying creatively to remove the obstacles which prevent the majority of Catholics in the world actually having access to the Eucharist?"
19nathanielcampbell
>18 John5918:: I agree that the Eucharist is at the center of the Christian life, and I agree that the Church should be doing everything it possibly can to increase access to the sacrament.
But while this may seem merely a "discussion on technicalities", the reality of the sacerdotal character is something we get "creative" with at the peril of the Church's very identity. You don't get to bend the rules just to make life easier.
Changing the fundamental definitions of the Church's ministry is not a "technicality". As I said earlier, this is not something that can simply be changed with the flip of an administrative switch -- and the folks at NCR who think it can fundamentally do not understand the nature of the Church. It would demand, at minimum, an Ecumenical Council, and most likely one that would have to include the Eastern churches, as well -- for if you thought they flipped their lid over the "technicality" of "filioque", just wait and see what happens when you start redefining the priesthood.
But while this may seem merely a "discussion on technicalities", the reality of the sacerdotal character is something we get "creative" with at the peril of the Church's very identity. You don't get to bend the rules just to make life easier.
Changing the fundamental definitions of the Church's ministry is not a "technicality". As I said earlier, this is not something that can simply be changed with the flip of an administrative switch -- and the folks at NCR who think it can fundamentally do not understand the nature of the Church. It would demand, at minimum, an Ecumenical Council, and most likely one that would have to include the Eastern churches, as well -- for if you thought they flipped their lid over the "technicality" of "filioque", just wait and see what happens when you start redefining the priesthood.
20John5918
>19 nathanielcampbell: You don't get to bend the rules just to make life easier.
We're not talking about making life easier. We're talking about making the Eucharist, which is supposed to be the centre of the Church's life, actually the centre of the Church's life. That is very much part of the character and the nature of the Church.
the folks at NCR who think it can fundamentally do not understand the nature of the Church
Sorry, Nathaniel, but that is very patronising. Maybe they understand the actual nature of the Church (that it is primarily Eucharistic) better than those who think it is about limiting the availability of the sacraments?
It would demand, at minimum, an Ecumenical Council
Well, of course. It's not going to happen overnight. But it's a problem which I have seen discussed seriously within the Church (albeit not within the Vatican) for at least 30 years.
and most likely one that would have to include the Eastern churches, as well
If you mean the ones which are in communion with Rome, certainly. If you mean those which aren't, I'm not sure why they would suddenly need to be included. They've already gone their own way and we've gone ours.
We're not talking about making life easier. We're talking about making the Eucharist, which is supposed to be the centre of the Church's life, actually the centre of the Church's life. That is very much part of the character and the nature of the Church.
the folks at NCR who think it can fundamentally do not understand the nature of the Church
Sorry, Nathaniel, but that is very patronising. Maybe they understand the actual nature of the Church (that it is primarily Eucharistic) better than those who think it is about limiting the availability of the sacraments?
It would demand, at minimum, an Ecumenical Council
Well, of course. It's not going to happen overnight. But it's a problem which I have seen discussed seriously within the Church (albeit not within the Vatican) for at least 30 years.
and most likely one that would have to include the Eastern churches, as well
If you mean the ones which are in communion with Rome, certainly. If you mean those which aren't, I'm not sure why they would suddenly need to be included. They've already gone their own way and we've gone ours.
21nathanielcampbell
>20 John5918:: "If you mean the ones which are in communion with Rome, certainly. If you mean those which aren't, I'm not sure why they would suddenly need to be included."
I love you, John, but declaring a council "Ecumenical" but not caring whether 1/3 of Christendom shows up fits the bill of "very patronising".
"Sorry, Nathaniel, but that is very patronising. Maybe they understand the actual nature of the Church (that it is primarily Eucharistic) better than those who think it is about limiting the availability of the sacraments?"
I apologize for the tone, but not for the substance of my statement. This has nothing to do with "limiting the availability of the sacraments." It has to do with the fact that the theology of ordination is fundamental to ecclesiology and to the nature of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. These are very serious issues that cut right to the heart of the Church's authority and adherence to the true faith. Up and declaring that a central component of ecclesiology--the minister who represents the laity before God and represents Christ before the laity--has been wrong for two thousand years and needs to be changed is a very serious issue that could very easily undermine the entire foundation of the Church's identity.
And this is because the Church is promised in the Gospel to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If it turns out that the Church should ordain women, it raises the very serious question: where was the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the last two thousand years on this very fundamental question? If the Church got this one wrong for two thousand years, what else did it get wrong?
When I read that NCR editorial about "correcting injustice", I did not once get the sense that they understood just how fundamental this all is. They don't perceive just how high the stakes are here on the other side, nor how fundamental and radical a change women's ordination would be.
I'm not saying it's impossible. What I'm saying is that it's a lot more complicated and a lot more difficult to accomplish than most advocates of women's ordination seem to think.
I love you, John, but declaring a council "Ecumenical" but not caring whether 1/3 of Christendom shows up fits the bill of "very patronising".
"Sorry, Nathaniel, but that is very patronising. Maybe they understand the actual nature of the Church (that it is primarily Eucharistic) better than those who think it is about limiting the availability of the sacraments?"
I apologize for the tone, but not for the substance of my statement. This has nothing to do with "limiting the availability of the sacraments." It has to do with the fact that the theology of ordination is fundamental to ecclesiology and to the nature of the Church as the Mystical Body of Christ. These are very serious issues that cut right to the heart of the Church's authority and adherence to the true faith. Up and declaring that a central component of ecclesiology--the minister who represents the laity before God and represents Christ before the laity--has been wrong for two thousand years and needs to be changed is a very serious issue that could very easily undermine the entire foundation of the Church's identity.
And this is because the Church is promised in the Gospel to be guided by the Holy Spirit. If it turns out that the Church should ordain women, it raises the very serious question: where was the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the last two thousand years on this very fundamental question? If the Church got this one wrong for two thousand years, what else did it get wrong?
When I read that NCR editorial about "correcting injustice", I did not once get the sense that they understood just how fundamental this all is. They don't perceive just how high the stakes are here on the other side, nor how fundamental and radical a change women's ordination would be.
I'm not saying it's impossible. What I'm saying is that it's a lot more complicated and a lot more difficult to accomplish than most advocates of women's ordination seem to think.
22John5918
>21 nathanielcampbell: Are we using different definitions of "Ecumenical Council" here? Vatican II was considered an Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholic Church, but as far as I know it did not include churches which are not in communion with Rome.
This has nothing to do with "limiting the availability of the sacraments."
That is perhaps not how it looks to the privileged minority rump of the Catholic Church which exists in the northern hemisphere, nor to theologians in ivory towers*, but it is increasingly how it looks to the majority of the Church in the southern hemisphere. Praxis theology demands that we look at the real life of the Church and interrogate tradition in that light.
I'm not saying it's impossible. What I'm saying is that it's a lot more complicated and a lot more difficult to accomplish than most advocates of women's ordination seem to think.
Well, there I agree with you 100%. Most issues are more complicated and more difficult than the current sound-bite culture admits.
_____________________
* Apologies for that little dig at theologians! But things really do look very different depending on where you sit.
This has nothing to do with "limiting the availability of the sacraments."
That is perhaps not how it looks to the privileged minority rump of the Catholic Church which exists in the northern hemisphere, nor to theologians in ivory towers*, but it is increasingly how it looks to the majority of the Church in the southern hemisphere. Praxis theology demands that we look at the real life of the Church and interrogate tradition in that light.
I'm not saying it's impossible. What I'm saying is that it's a lot more complicated and a lot more difficult to accomplish than most advocates of women's ordination seem to think.
Well, there I agree with you 100%. Most issues are more complicated and more difficult than the current sound-bite culture admits.
_____________________
* Apologies for that little dig at theologians! But things really do look very different depending on where you sit.
23nathanielcampbell
>22 John5918:: "Are we using different definitions of "Ecumenical Council" here? Vatican II was considered an Ecumenical Council by the Roman Catholic Church, but as far as I know it did not include churches which are not in communion with Rome. "
This is where being a non-Roman Catholic makes all the difference. Rome has spent the better part of a millennium pretending that it represents universal Christendom, when in fact, it doesn't. It's disingenuous to call a council "ecumenical" yet not to bother with those parts of Christendom that you think don't kow-tow enough to the Pope.
{He says all this of this with brotherly affection and a charitable grin planted firmly across his face. Electronic communication demands the use of an emoticon :-) }
ETA: Or perhaps, to imitate Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, he will use the biretta'd one: o{]:¬)
This is where being a non-Roman Catholic makes all the difference. Rome has spent the better part of a millennium pretending that it represents universal Christendom, when in fact, it doesn't. It's disingenuous to call a council "ecumenical" yet not to bother with those parts of Christendom that you think don't kow-tow enough to the Pope.
{He says all this of this with brotherly affection and a charitable grin planted firmly across his face. Electronic communication demands the use of an emoticon :-) }
ETA: Or perhaps, to imitate Fr. John Zuhlsdorf, he will use the biretta'd one: o{]:¬)
24John5918
>23 nathanielcampbell: I'm not sure how it is disingenuous. The Roman Catholic Church calls them Ecumenical Councils. That other churches might disagree is not surprising, but we're hardly trying to trick anybody with the title.
Your suggestion that to change the rules on ordination would require Roman Catholics to invite other churches into our councils is at odds with the practice of the Anglican church, which did not invite us Left Footers into its synods which changed the nature of ordination, and which pointedly ignored hints from Rome that this would affect relations between the two churches. I don't criticise the Anglicans for this - I think it's perfectly fine - but I wonder why you hold the Roman Church to a different standard?
Your suggestion that to change the rules on ordination would require Roman Catholics to invite other churches into our councils is at odds with the practice of the Anglican church, which did not invite us Left Footers into its synods which changed the nature of ordination, and which pointedly ignored hints from Rome that this would affect relations between the two churches. I don't criticise the Anglicans for this - I think it's perfectly fine - but I wonder why you hold the Roman Church to a different standard?
25gabriel
Hey guys- I'll insert a few thoughts here, if I may.
Firstly, going back to your earlier discussion of authority in the Church outside of the ordained orders, I was reminded of something I once heard Metropolitan Kallistos Ware say- that there is in addition to the hierarchical authority in the Church there is also the authority of the startsy, the elders, the holy ones. And, of course, women have always been markedly present among the saints and spiritual athletes in the Church; from the early martyrs like Lucy and Cecilia to Mary of Egypt and Scholastica, etcetera, etcetera. And, of course, the holy witness par excellence is the Virgin Mary. So there very much is an order of authority within the Church that women are equal partakers in (and if we are to consider the Virgin Mary, more than equal).
But with respect to the question of the priesthood, there are a few aspects that seem to have been missed thus far; the priest, in his ontological and sacerdotal identity becomes for us an alter Christus, another Christ, acting in the person of Christ in communicating the sacramental realities to us. Indeed, if the sacrifice of the mass is a real sacrifice, and it is the same sacrifice as that of Christ on the cross, Christ must be present in the priest. And sex is not merely important for appearances, but for the sacramental reality of how the priestly order relates to the Church - as a groom relates to his bride. The spousal nature of Christ's love for his Church is revealed to us in scripture and further articulated throughout the history of the Church; and our bodies, our sexual identities (even when we are celibate) are integrally part of our humanity.
I agree that the Eucharist is the summit of our sacramental life as Christians, but let us not reduce the disposition of grace to just the Eucharist. For centuries, the Church in Japan was persecuted and deprived of priestly ministry- yet the Faith endured. Even if we broadened the categories of who may be ordained (say, by ordaining married men) it remains God who calls to the priesthood, not us. I went to seminary, I desired to give myself to the ministry of the priesthood for the good of the Church. Yet those who had the grace of state to discern with me felt I did not have that calling from God- a fact I only later recognised as true. I still believe that on a human level, I would have made a pretty good priest - but that is not the point. So on a very personal level I know that we cannot determine who God calls, and our willingness to serve as priests does not mean that God accepts us to increase the availability of the sacraments. We can only be faithful.
Firstly, going back to your earlier discussion of authority in the Church outside of the ordained orders, I was reminded of something I once heard Metropolitan Kallistos Ware say- that there is in addition to the hierarchical authority in the Church there is also the authority of the startsy, the elders, the holy ones. And, of course, women have always been markedly present among the saints and spiritual athletes in the Church; from the early martyrs like Lucy and Cecilia to Mary of Egypt and Scholastica, etcetera, etcetera. And, of course, the holy witness par excellence is the Virgin Mary. So there very much is an order of authority within the Church that women are equal partakers in (and if we are to consider the Virgin Mary, more than equal).
But with respect to the question of the priesthood, there are a few aspects that seem to have been missed thus far; the priest, in his ontological and sacerdotal identity becomes for us an alter Christus, another Christ, acting in the person of Christ in communicating the sacramental realities to us. Indeed, if the sacrifice of the mass is a real sacrifice, and it is the same sacrifice as that of Christ on the cross, Christ must be present in the priest. And sex is not merely important for appearances, but for the sacramental reality of how the priestly order relates to the Church - as a groom relates to his bride. The spousal nature of Christ's love for his Church is revealed to us in scripture and further articulated throughout the history of the Church; and our bodies, our sexual identities (even when we are celibate) are integrally part of our humanity.
I agree that the Eucharist is the summit of our sacramental life as Christians, but let us not reduce the disposition of grace to just the Eucharist. For centuries, the Church in Japan was persecuted and deprived of priestly ministry- yet the Faith endured. Even if we broadened the categories of who may be ordained (say, by ordaining married men) it remains God who calls to the priesthood, not us. I went to seminary, I desired to give myself to the ministry of the priesthood for the good of the Church. Yet those who had the grace of state to discern with me felt I did not have that calling from God- a fact I only later recognised as true. I still believe that on a human level, I would have made a pretty good priest - but that is not the point. So on a very personal level I know that we cannot determine who God calls, and our willingness to serve as priests does not mean that God accepts us to increase the availability of the sacraments. We can only be faithful.
26John5918
>25 gabriel: Thanks, gabriel. A lot of what you say is true, of course. I would say, however, that the lack of priests in what was a very small missionary territory like Japan during a particular period of history is not of the same magnitude for the Church as the ongoing lack of priests in the vast majority of the Catholic world (noting here that Europe and north America are no longer the norm for Catholics). It may well be that this is one of those times when the Church really has to look deeply into who we are and what is essential.
On the ordination of married men, which is of course a matter of discipline rather than doctrine, the Church has already discerned that it is OK to ordain thousands of married men for normal parish service in the western Catholic Church (on top of those married priests who already existed in the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church). It may well be described as a "special case" (for former Anglican clergy who have now converted to Catholicism) but I think it sets a recent precedent for other "special cases" to be considered, especially in the southern hemisphere. A lot of bishops, who are themselves part of the teaching authority of the Church, would support that, I think.
I recall not so long ago sitting in a plenary meeting of a national bishops' conference discussing solutions to the shortage of priests, and a retired bishop said, "Well, we should ordain married men". There was a moment of stunned silence before the cardinal muttered, "I meant practical suggestions!" I love retired bishops - they've got nothing to lose!
But I agree with your first paragraph, and I think Nathaniel has mentioned the same thing, that the Church needs to explore broader models of authority and ministry, some of which already existed in the tradition, rather than focusing only on the ordained priesthood. Vatican II began to open up some avenues, with the re-institution of married deacons, the formalisation of lay ministries such as acolyte, reader, catechist and extraordinary ministers of communion, allowing girls to join the ranks of altar servers, etc. Lay catechists are often authorised not only to lead Sunday communion services and to baptise, but also to preside at marriages and funerals. There is scope for further and broader exploration.
On the ordination of married men, which is of course a matter of discipline rather than doctrine, the Church has already discerned that it is OK to ordain thousands of married men for normal parish service in the western Catholic Church (on top of those married priests who already existed in the Eastern Rites of the Roman Catholic Church). It may well be described as a "special case" (for former Anglican clergy who have now converted to Catholicism) but I think it sets a recent precedent for other "special cases" to be considered, especially in the southern hemisphere. A lot of bishops, who are themselves part of the teaching authority of the Church, would support that, I think.
I recall not so long ago sitting in a plenary meeting of a national bishops' conference discussing solutions to the shortage of priests, and a retired bishop said, "Well, we should ordain married men". There was a moment of stunned silence before the cardinal muttered, "I meant practical suggestions!" I love retired bishops - they've got nothing to lose!
But I agree with your first paragraph, and I think Nathaniel has mentioned the same thing, that the Church needs to explore broader models of authority and ministry, some of which already existed in the tradition, rather than focusing only on the ordained priesthood. Vatican II began to open up some avenues, with the re-institution of married deacons, the formalisation of lay ministries such as acolyte, reader, catechist and extraordinary ministers of communion, allowing girls to join the ranks of altar servers, etc. Lay catechists are often authorised not only to lead Sunday communion services and to baptise, but also to preside at marriages and funerals. There is scope for further and broader exploration.
27nathanielcampbell
I have posted a topic in "Let's Talk Religion" concerning Pres. Jimmy Carter's recent assertion that the male-only priesthood is a human rights abuse: http://www.librarything.com/topic/155684
On a related note: I have corralled much of what I said in the course of this thread into a blog post that might be of interest: Women's Ordination: Teaching Authority, Sacramentality, and the Priesthood.
On a related note: I have corralled much of what I said in the course of this thread into a blog post that might be of interest: Women's Ordination: Teaching Authority, Sacramentality, and the Priesthood.
28MyopicBookworm
If it turns out that the Church should ordain women, it raises the very serious question: where was the guidance of the Holy Spirit for the last two thousand years on this very fundamental question? If the Church got this one wrong for two thousand years, what else did it get wrong?
Mariology or papal infallibility (only defined in 1854)? Mass in Latin (suddenly abandoned in 1960-whenever)? Perhaps the Holy Spirit/Hagia Sophia has been making the suggestion for 2000 years, and the church has been replying "you can't teach us anything, you're female". The Church was born in a patriarchal society and has not escaped that context of origin: the church is run by men because it was always run by men. The rebuttal of women's ordination is now more forthright as the issue is now more pressing than in previous misogynistic centuries, and the questions more unanswerable. I see that one of the Vatican documents cited in the linked articles specifically cites the example of Christ in not ordaining women to the priesthood, as though Jesus himself ever ordained anyone to anything: the appeal is vacuous, since it simply assumes the ecclesiological model that it is supposed to support.
I was reminded of something I once heard Metropolitan Kallistos Ware say- that there is in addition to the hierarchical authority in the Church there is also the authority of the startsy, the elders, the holy ones. And, of course, women have always been markedly present among the saints and spiritual athletes in the Church
But they have always been excluded from that part of religious authority which actually exercises power over people's lives.
the theology of ordination is fundamental to ecclesiology
but lay people are systematically excluded from the councils of the church, so women are automatically excluded from them; and if they attempt to put their point of view they are marginalized and told that their ideas lie outside the tradition of the church. The hierarchy is a men's club which refuses to admit women, and does so by appealing to a tradition which they have themselves constructed.
(I speak as one who is not only not a Catholic but is more or less dropping out of the Church of England partly because of its position on women's ministry. If I didn't think my local bishop a reasonably Good Thing, I might have been wondering whether, in imitation of the conservatives, I should seek episcopal oversight from Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.)
Mariology or papal infallibility (only defined in 1854)? Mass in Latin (suddenly abandoned in 1960-whenever)? Perhaps the Holy Spirit/Hagia Sophia has been making the suggestion for 2000 years, and the church has been replying "you can't teach us anything, you're female". The Church was born in a patriarchal society and has not escaped that context of origin: the church is run by men because it was always run by men. The rebuttal of women's ordination is now more forthright as the issue is now more pressing than in previous misogynistic centuries, and the questions more unanswerable. I see that one of the Vatican documents cited in the linked articles specifically cites the example of Christ in not ordaining women to the priesthood, as though Jesus himself ever ordained anyone to anything: the appeal is vacuous, since it simply assumes the ecclesiological model that it is supposed to support.
I was reminded of something I once heard Metropolitan Kallistos Ware say- that there is in addition to the hierarchical authority in the Church there is also the authority of the startsy, the elders, the holy ones. And, of course, women have always been markedly present among the saints and spiritual athletes in the Church
But they have always been excluded from that part of religious authority which actually exercises power over people's lives.
the theology of ordination is fundamental to ecclesiology
but lay people are systematically excluded from the councils of the church, so women are automatically excluded from them; and if they attempt to put their point of view they are marginalized and told that their ideas lie outside the tradition of the church. The hierarchy is a men's club which refuses to admit women, and does so by appealing to a tradition which they have themselves constructed.
(I speak as one who is not only not a Catholic but is more or less dropping out of the Church of England partly because of its position on women's ministry. If I didn't think my local bishop a reasonably Good Thing, I might have been wondering whether, in imitation of the conservatives, I should seek episcopal oversight from Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.)
Join to post
